Delhi High Court - Orders
Tdi Infrastructure Ltd & Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 18 October, 2022
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2683/2022
TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms Roohe Hina Dua, Ms Mansi
Gupta, Ms Dhanakshi Gandhi, Mr
Nishchint Rawat, Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Richa Dhawan, APP for the State
Inspector Kamal Kohli, PS EOW
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
ORDER
% 18.10.2022
1.0 This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing of FIR no. 116/2017 dated 27.07.2017 for the offences under Section 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2.0 The present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of the respondent no. 3 i.e., Hariom Jain, who expired on 03.05.2019 leaving behind his wife and two sons. Sarthak Jain, son of the respondent no. 3 has appeared as attorney of his mother and has handed over the Power of Attorney in that behalf.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 18:59:123.0 It is submitted that vide settlement dated 26.11.2021, the sons Sarthak Jain and Mohil Jain, being legal heirs of the deceased Hariom Jain relinquished their rights in property bearing Flat no. T-16/0701 at TDI Kundali Tuskan Heights in TDI City, Kundali Sonipat Haryana in favour of their mother. It is further submitted that the deceased's wife/respondent no. 3 herein arrived at a settlement with the petitioner vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.11.2021, whereby the respondent no. 3 has received back a sum of Rs. 13,28,343/- and compensation amounting to Rs. 14,46,656/- i.e., total Rs. 27,75,000/-. In view of the settlement, they do not want to pursue the matter.
3.1 It is also submitted that settlement has also been arrived at with the respondent no.4/Chander Mohan vide Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2018 (Page 182/Annexure P-12). It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 had cleared his dues with respect to property bearing 3BHK T-42/3-TF and sale deed was executed in his favour. Respondent no. 4 submits that the said sale deed was registered in his favour and he has even sold the said flat further and he has no objection to the quashing of FIR. Respondent no. 4 further submits that he had purchased another flat bearing Flat no. C-R5/53-IInd Floor from Niraj Sharma and Anuradha Sharma, which had nothing to do with the present FIR but the petitioner in its reply to EOW has mentioned about the same, which may create some problem for him in the future.
4.0 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact has already been clarified by the learned trial court in its order dated 19.09.2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 18:59:125.0 Mr Rajesh Bahl, SPA Holder of the respondent no. 5 herein has appeared through video conferencing.
5.1 It is submitted that the settlement has also been arrived at with the respondent no. 5 vide Settlement Deed dated 31.01.2022 (Page 188/Annexure P-13) signed by Mr Rajesh Bahl, her attorney, whereby the respondent no. 5 has received back a total sum of Rs. 21,73,744/- (Rs. 11,88,138/- principal amount and Rs.9,74,606/- compensation amount). In view of the settlement, the respondent no. 5 does not wish to pursue the matter.
6.0 Learned Prosecutor on instructions from IO submits that Rajesh Bahl is the SPA Holder of the respondent no. 5 Monika Raizada and that Power of Attorney is the part of the charge sheet.
6.1 Learned Prosecutor submits that in view of the parties having amicably resolved their disputes and as the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 do not wish to prosecute the matter, State also has no objection to quashing of the FIR in question.
7.0 Considering the above facts and circumstances in entirety, and as the respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 do not wish to prosecute the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Rather, quashing of these proceedings would further the ends of justice and save precious judicial time.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 18:59:128.0 Thus FIR no. 116/2017 dated 27.07.2017 for the offences under Section 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9.0 The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
POONAM A. BAMBA, J OCTOBER 18, 2022 g.joshi Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.11.2022 18:59:12